en. Rand Paul (R-KY) appeared on CNNs The Situation Room on Tuesday evening where he was asked to respond to former Vice President Dick Cheney who told Fox News Channels Chris Wallace that the junior Kentucky senator was wrong when he criticized the NSAs surveillance programs. Paul tore into the Bush administrations role in the establishment of the post-9/11 security regime, noting that he thinks it is possible to catch terrorists using methods consistent with the Constitution.

Cheney told the Fox News Sunday host that Paul was incorrect in his criticisms of the NSAs communications monitoring programs. The former vice president said that Congress authorized the post-9/11 counterterror programs and there is nothing illegal about them.

What I would ask is who did they fire after 9/11? Paul asked. Not one person was fired.

Do you remember the 20th hijacker? he continued. [Zacarias] Moussaoui, captured a month in advance? The FBI agent wrote 70 letters asking, lets look at this guys computer. In the FBI, they turned him down.

It wasnt that they couldnt get a warrant, nobody asked for a warrant, Paul added. To me, that was really, really bad intelligence  really bad police work  and, really, someone should have been removed from office for that.

Normally I would agree with VP Cheney on more things than I’d disagree. But here... I think Cheney should talk to Jim Sensenbrenner, who, after all, was largely responsible for the writing of the original Patriot Act, and who has repeatedly said the NSA surveillance has gotten way out of hand / beyond what was ever intended.

Is he saying that Bush and Cheney should have been impeached? Is he saying the CIA director or FBI director should have been removed? We don’t know, do we, because Rand didn’t have the “intestional fortitude” to spell it out.

Intelligence failure to “connect the dots” was certainly a part of pre-911 failures. Post 911, What Bush & Cheney TRIED to do was remove the barriers to connecting the dots, which were in part THERE because of the WALL put in place by Jamie Gorelick during the Clinton years.

So Clinton was POTUS for EIGHT yrs., then Bush & Cheney were in office for 8 months before 911, and we’re supposed to BLAME the barely-in- office Republicans for 911??

Oh wait - or was it the intelligence community in place at the time we should blame, or was it...now WHO was it specifically that should have been removed from office??

But what were they - whomever in the intelligence community - doing for the EIGHT years while this built up and built up? Oh never mind, Rand is just attacking Dick Cheney because Liz Cheney is going to run against Rand’s new-found Senate buddy Mike Enzi and we can’t have THAT, so must lash out and attack...

Asst. ATTY GEN. Jamie Gorelick’s WALL between sharing foreign and domestic intel. Clinton refusing to take Osama on more than one occasion. Clinton refusing to do anything effective about terrorist attacks prior to 911. All of that, but Rand attacks Dick Cheney??

Over a Senate primary challenge in which Rand is not even involved but has chosen to insert himself and BASH??

"So Clinton was POTUS for EIGHT yrs., then Bush & Cheney were in office for 8 months before 911, and were supposed to BLAME the barely-in- office Republicans for 911??"

I don't see Paul blaming Bush & Cheney for 911. I see him blaming Bush & Cheney for not firing anyone who screwed up and missed the 911 attack. They covered up failure. They covered up Able Danger, which undercovered the 911 plot before the attack.

As typical with Bush & Cheney (ie they didn't communicate), they (or their people) never made the case that Clinton had several opportunities to take out Bin Laden and disrupt al Qaeda.

Cheney attacked Rand Paul first and defended the expansion of government power that happened during the Bush years.

Then Rand Paul replied that instead of trampling on the constitution to spy on law abiding citizens, the Bush administraton should have fired the people who missed all the clues and failed to defend the country on 9/11.

This is just common sense. One of the hijackers was arrested just before 9/11. Somebody obviously screwed up and failed to prevent the attack. Then their first response is to ask for more power and more money to spy on every law abiding citizen in the country and store all their communications forever in Utah.

Here's the passage at issue: In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out. Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president. Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. The mujaheddin did much to help bleed the Soviets dry, at a comparatively negligible cost to the United States (for smuggled military hardware and some intelligence). "We all know how well that worked out," said Sen. Paul, dismissively, of the work of our "war caucus" to support the mujaheddin. Yes, we do: It played a key role in helping us win the Cold War. Anybody who doesn't understand that is either foolish or invincibly ignorant. Second, it is a myth that the United States "armed bin Laden." False, false, false. It is also a falsehood to say that bin Laden was a major player within the mujeheddin or in the anti-Soviet war effort at all. Finally, it is false even to say that the Afghani effort against the Soviets was primarily, or even largely, about "jihad." It was a defensive effort against armed invaders, not an offensive effort by "radicals" in the name of Allah.

Paul believes in the Constitutions provision that a warrant be issued specifically detailing the wwwwwhs of a search.

I see the Constitution as our guiding document, and if Cheney or anyone wants it changed, then they are free to pursue an amendment. The Fisa court is an attempt to amend the constitution by legislative vote IF its given ANY authority to short-circuit that constitutional requirement.

We dont have secret courts issuing secret, rushed warrants in the Constitution. Anything in the Bill of Rights should be held to a HIGHER standard and not to a lower one.

Some say this makes us vulnerable to terrorists. I disagree. If theyve only found a terrorist plan by painstaking research or field work, then the extra few days to do this properly is no impediment.

If they have discovered an act to be carried out against the US, then the President is the Commander in Chief, and he has the authority to make immediate strikes to protect our security.

24
posted on 07/20/2013 4:40:03 AM PDT
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)

“I didn’t say perfect or even sterling. Just decent, and especially decent when you compare them to Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and the other turds.”

Comparing them to Barky et al isn’t setting the bar very high. “Decent” as compared to obama, reid, and pelosi is a standard that any stray dog could beat. Even the ones with mange. And perhaps even the rabid ones.

Bush/Cheney not only refused to hold anyone to account for the failures (as if that is not an indictment) but the tools tried for 2 years to deny the need for an investigation and finally put together a Potemkin 911 commission and never, never managed to secure the border w/ Marxico. IT IS TIME for THE TRUTH from the criminal Government. I am hoping Rand keeps up this line of attack. Make them SQUEAL Rand Paul!!!

..a whole bunch of ‘em were learning to take off in jetliners during the Clinton years...
Do you really believe the trainee terrorist pilots flew a 757 Airliner into the WTC or the Pentagon? These flights would be IMPOSSIBLE MISSIONS for even the best pilots in the world. Wake the hell up!

Well, I suppose, except Bush had only been in office for nine months before the attack, not much time to undo twelve years of damage since Reagan.

Could Bush have been better prepared? Maybe.

Was our intelligence community in shambles? Yes. Why?

Not because of Dubya, but becasue of the previous eight years of neglect, mismanagement, and double-minded hand wringing. Clinton and the Leftists brought on 9/11 because, as always, the Left's lack of purpose and conviction emboldened our enemies.

In usual Leftist fashion, Clinton failed to act in our defense when action was called for. Multiple times when the U.S. was attacked by al-Qaeda Clinton instead did nothing, sending out a message of weakness. Clinton DID act however, also in Leftist fashion, to weaken our own defenses by crippling our intelligence community and putting artificial barriers to prevent communication between the FBI and the CIA.

The story of 9/11 was a story of CLINTON's utter failure of intelligence and proper response to threats and attacks. Al-Qaeda just didn't realize that the new guy in the WH wasn't going to not do anything. Bush's unequivocal and swift response took al-Qaeda by complete surprise.

In the meantime, the media is already wanting exploit dissension in the ranks of the Right. I'm sure they don't like (afraid of?) Paul Rand and are already working to see what they can do to weaken his prospects. Rand (and Cheney for that matter) would be wise to moderate their comments to the MSM and work things out among themselves behind closed doors.

Having said that, I like Paul Rand's forthrightness - and he seems much more balanced when it comes to defense and foreign policy than his dad, who came across as a loony tune about this stuff.

Right there with you. It was a dumb statement. Most of Bush’s appointees were held up in the confirmation process in spite due to the 2000 election and all things Gore. I’m not going to rehash the administration’s failings from the 8 years prior. Enough to say that the security apparatus post 9/11 was in large measure tightened up...and to some extent, overboard (Homeland Security seemed like a good idea at the time...even to me) but to attempt to cast blame for 9/11 on Bush/Cheney just feeds the Left narrative.

I like Rand Paul...but he is naïve in many areas of national security. Not uncommon, 0bama certainly had no idea. No one does....until they read that first Presidential Briefing and have an Oh, s#@% moment.

Dick Cheney to the people of the US, " We have to bug your granny's phone, your daughter's phone, your phone and your wife's phone...just in case you might be a terrorist. Then, and only then, we will allow you to blow up Boston at your discretion."

Dick Cheney is a good guy, but the government has violated the trust of the people way too many times, and it looks hell-bent taking it a few steps further. I DO NOT AND WILL NOT PLACE MY FULL TRUST IN THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!

36
posted on 07/20/2013 6:19:18 AM PDT
by RatRipper
(Self-centeredness, greed, envy, deceit and lawless corruption has killed this once great nation.)

Do you remember the 20th hijacker? he continued. [Zacarias] Moussaoui, captured a month in advance? The FBI agent wrote 70 letters asking, lets look at this guys computer. In the FBI, they turned him down. It wasnt that they couldnt get a warrant, nobody asked for a warrant, Paul added. To me, that was really, really bad intelligence  really bad police work  and, really, someone should have been removed from office for that.

I believe Paul did provide enough information that folks don't need to question if he was suggesting impeachment or some such.

One thing Paul didn't mention was that it was known that Middle-Easterners were in flight school, making statements that they didn't need to learn how to land. Oh no matter, it's not important enough to check out...

Rand is right here. Some people should have lost their jobs.

Look at the destruction that took place here, and tell yourself there were no career ending mistakes made. Sorry, I'm not buying that one, and I doubt you are either.

40
posted on 07/20/2013 6:49:26 AM PDT
by DoughtyOne
(Zimmerman breaks Martin's nose/pounds his head on concrete? Does Martin's backers support Zimmerman?)

With all due respect your passage is mired in the minutiae and is unable to articulate the ripple effect of dropping the stone in the pond. Simply put, the inference is wrong.

The principle in the main is that an incomplete intervention sets conditions that require further intervention.

As an example, a surgeon can remove a bullet to save the life of a wounded person, but leaving that wounded person bleeding to death on the table renders the prior act of saving the life pointless.

Reagan’s efforts freed hundreds of millions behind the Iron Curtain but left a vacuum that was filled by persons and sects that established breeding grounds for Bin Laden and global jihad.

What Reagan ultimately decided in regards to Afghanistan and what Rand is defending in regards to our constitutional rights are both correct. The two are not in opposition. The Soviet Union was our mortal enemy. The Afghan intervention was expected to cause swarms of jihad to spread globally.

The correct followup action to treating the bleeding that threatens the patient on the table is to either rely on thrombosis or stanch the flow or a combination thereof.

Thrombosis in this case refers to the popular push-back of jihad which occurs and has occurred naturally as long as the US does not disrupt the natural process of social coagulation. This occurred in Pakistan where the society there rejected jihad but embraced its literal children; many of the jihadists had taken refuge there and their sons and daughters grew up and intermarried into the general population.

What Cheney is defending is the mummification of the patient to stop the bleeding without regards to suffocation of constitutional rights. What Rand is advocating are compresses, sutures, needle and thread.

The two arguments are an ideological argument of which Rand sides with American ideals and Cheney sides with the New World Order. The two arguments are diametrically opposed and the winner of the argument will depend on the awareness of the American people which is why freerepublic.com exists.

Cheney told the Fox News Sunday host that Paul was incorrect in his criticisms of the NSAs communications monitoring programs. The former vice president said that Congress authorized the post-9/11 counterterror programs and there is nothing illegal about them.

Oh and Congress has NEVER written an unconstitutional law either. /s

I used to respect you Mr. Cheney. When it comes to dealing with terrorists, the Second Amendment militia is the correct strategic direction with which to round those people up and get them out of this country. You just don't get it.

I will never believe that fighters could have not be scrambled to shoot down the two jumbo jets that crashed into the WTC. Better 400 people die that over 3,000. But Bush fired no one. Obama fires no one. And when the big-eared nothing is no longer president they will be the best of buddies. Presidents look out for each other. Bush should have indicted Clinton for his treasonous actions but let him slide. They are all crooked SOBs. The only thing 9/11 accomplished was making rich men richer. Never forget Cheney’s Haliburton with their “no bid” contracts courtesy of this warmongering SOB. Absolutely illegal but of course he got by with it.

Everyone of the 911 terrorists was in the US illegally. They were all Saudis. The curtailment of the freedoms of US citizens and the overseas wars were not a logical response to what happened.

I'm liking Rand Paul more everyday. Liz Cheney running for that US Senate seat might have a real good unintended consequence. Maybe those in the US Senate and HOR who want to change the Republican Party will give up on compromising with the 'pubs who represent the globalist ptb.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.